To the editor:
I would like to comment on the “Zoo is worthy to support” letter in the Aug. 23 Sun Thisweek. My family and I also enjoy going to the Minnesota Zoo, as it is definitely a premier zoo venue, and one we should be proud of as residents of Minnesota. However, whether it’s the Minnesota Zoo or stadiums built for professional sports, why does our government continue to support more and more of these endeavors?
On the surface, some non-essential projects appear to be worthy ones; however, our Minnesota Bill of Rights, Section 1, object of government, states, “Government is instituted for the security, benefit, and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.”
The South Metro Tea Party’s core values as posted on their Facebook page state, “We the People stand for Constitutionally Limited Government, Fiscal Responsibility, Free Markets and Individual Responsibility.” The Tea Party supports the object of government as stated in Section 1 of our Bill of Rights. It appears, though, that William Cory Labovitch in his letter to the editor finds the Tea Party to be putting “extreme activism” pressure on Tara Mack and Anna Wills, as both state representatives (districts 57A and 57B) did not endorse additional funding for the Minnesota Zoo. This despite the March 30, 2013, Star Tribune article, “Minnesota Zoo plans ambitious, costly makeover,” where it was reported that, “The Minnesota Zoo is a state agency; about 29 percent of its roughly $25 million operating budget is public funding, and the state has provided tens of millions for major capital projects, such as new exhibits.”
Taking a position that we need to limit funding to non-essential programs and showing fiscal responsibility within constitutionally limited government confines, when our state government doesn’t have an income problem, rather a spending one, doesn’t seem to me to be an “extreme” position to take.